Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Saving Studio A

I am a
preservationist.I live in an historic
district in a Victorian home that my wife and I have painstakingly restored and
renovated.I love old houses and
buildings and hate to see them torn down.That's my bias.

At the same
time, I am not an absolutist.I studied
historic zoning in law school and I know the Constitutional arguments pro and
con.

Like many
Nashvillians, I was surprised but not shocked to learn that the RCA Building (which
includes Studio A) on Music Row was
about to be sold.I read Ben Folds' open
letter to the powers that be trying to save Studio A from demolition. My wife
and I attended a rally as Studio A on June 30 and listened to
eloquent, impassioned speeches from Folds, Dave Pomeroy and many more people
about the need to preserve the "music" and Music
City before it becomes Condo City.

The very
next day I read property owner Harold Bradley's stunning rebuke in a letter
where he basically said that he and the late Chet Atkins had been trying to
unload this piece of property for 24 years and that it had no historical
value or cultural relevance whatsoever.

I have a
great deal of respect and empathy for Harold Bradley but I think that he is
mistaken.Sometimes those involved in
making history are not the best judges of their own contributions.

I spent the
first 20 years of my career in various offices on Music Row.Like most people who work there, I probably
wasn't noticing the architecture because I spent my time driving through the
alleys from building to building and trying to avoid the tourists driving the wrong
way down 16th Avenue South.But I
have always admired the RCA Building.To
my eyes, it is a great example of mid‑century modernism and a symbol of all
things "Countripolitan"-the sound and the magic that Mr. Bradley,
Mr. Atkins and their peers created.To my mind it is important that we preserve the RCA Building just like
it is important that we preserve the recordings that were made there and the
stories of how those recordings were made and the people that made them.

One of the
things that struck me when I visited the RCA Building last week was that it was
not a dormant relic.Most of the offices
looked occupied by living, breathing music businesses and the studio itself was
large and vibey ‑ in that way that all great studios are. More importantly, it was active. This is one
of my main complaints in dealing with the developer versus historic
preservation issue:Why tear down
something that is still useful and vibrant?As Ben Folds alluded, it really goes to the fabric of a city.Music Row is famous for reasons and the music
business developed there for a reason.There
is positive energy created by all of these music businesses operating in
proximity to each other. Music Row is
one of the first places out‑of-town guests want to see when they hit Nashville
and as record companies and publishers vacate the area it's getting more and
more difficult to find much to showcase ‑ the RCA Building and Studio A is a
shining exception.

Obviously,
no one is suggesting that the building owners be stripped of their property
rights but this is a wakeup call for a public/private discussion of the steps
that could be taken to preserve this landmark building before it is too
late.Remember that Liverpool tore down
the Cavern Club only to rebuild a replica across the street.Memphis razed Stax Records only to rebuild a
Disneyworld-like replica in the same spot because it realized its error.Nashville does not have to make the same
mistake. Start the discussion.